Maybe so, haven't paid attention while drinking in State College, but the storm and the ability for a sitting president to look strong, compassionate and no nonsense really, REALLY helps.

Although it still tickles me that there's any changes in these polls. Who the fuck is still on the fence?

Well, Bush won an election in 2004 by using marketing information (mailing lists, CC purchases, etc) that is stored in giant datawarehouses in the South to identify people in Ohio who may care about Gay Marriage and then sent people to there house repeatedely during the last week of of the election, getting the religotard vote to seal him Ohio.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Watching Chris Christie blow Obama on TV over his response to Sandy has been epic.

I believe the majority of that is sincere.

But I also think that Christie knows which way the wind is blowing and knows that Romney is going down. Christie putting politics aside and working with the president and being truly out there for his people is going to look awfully good in 2016. At least if it doesn't hurt him too much in the primaries.

Maybe so, haven't paid attention while drinking in State College, but the storm and the ability for a sitting president to look strong, compassionate and no nonsense really, REALLY helps.

Although it still tickles me that there's any changes in these polls. Who the fuck is still on the fence?

Well, Bush won an election in 2004 by using marketing information (mailing lists, CC purchases, etc) that is stored in giant datawarehouses in the South to identify people in Ohio who may care about Gay Marriage and then sent people to there house repeatedely during the last week of of the election, getting the religotard vote to seal him Ohio.

Maybe so, haven't paid attention while drinking in State College, but the storm and the ability for a sitting president to look strong, compassionate and no nonsense really, REALLY helps.

Although it still tickles me that there's any changes in these polls. Who the fuck is still on the fence?

Well, Bush won an election in 2004 by using marketing information (mailing lists, CC purchases, etc) that is stored in giant datawarehouses in the South to identify people in Ohio who may care about Gay Marriage and then sent people to there house repeatedely during the last week of of the election, getting the religotard vote to seal him Ohio.

Again, what indication is there that those people weren't going to vote and vote Bush anyway? And there's a difference between making sure your supporters get to the polls vs. numbers varying so widely in polling from day to day, no?

Maybe you support everything I say and do. I have your vote. But you can't get to polling station.

That's different than you changing your mind every day on whether I have your vote. Right?

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Watching Chris Christie blow Obama on TV over his response to Sandy has been epic.

I believe the majority of that is sincere.

But I also think that Christie knows which way the wind is blowing and knows that Romney is going down. Christie putting politics aside and working with the president and being truly out there for his people is going to look awfully good in 2016. At least if it doesn't hurt him too much in the primaries.

I think it's sincere too. Obama helped in the way Christie asked and he's grateful.

It's not about that Peeker. In a country where voter turnout is 100% miserable it's about finding morons (in the last week) that weren't going to vote, getting them pissed off about something (or excited about something, as was Obama's MO last run) and then getting them to get off their asses and actually vote.

Getting American's to vote is nothing short of a miracle and it takes "defending marriage from the Fags" or "defeating the evil, soul sucking suckabus George W Bush and bringing about the great CHANGE!!!"

I guess so. But IMO it's still an accurate description of the population in general.

Motivate the haters on either side (and there are millions) and it would theoretically result in the same percentages of votes. I guess if you can ID, appeal to and ensure your haters gt to the polls while the other side lacks that ability or desire then you have an advantage. But that doesn't mean there aren't a similar number of such folks on either side.

But on the polling side, I wouldn't think that faction of people would be swinging the poll numbers from day to day.

e0y2e3 wrote:And it doesn't hurt that being the face of our country in terms of diplomacy, compassion and even global security is the strongest part of Obama as a leader.

Big part of what I'm talking about.

Onus isn't on economy today. In fact there are people out there who are sure this storm just created thousands of jobs itself.

*^^ Same people who don't care or think about where the money to pay for cleanup and rebuild comes from...

Focus is on leadership, getting people assistance, compassion, resolve. Perfect made-for-TV opportunity for Obabma to stress his strengths and bury his weaknesses. And believe me, the man can speak and is bright and is compassionate. Not saying that's an act. Just that his strengths get to play out on every major network for the week leading up to election day while FoxNews tries to revive the Benghazi cover-up and the Fast & Furious fuckup.

I've watched all the networks in last five days and that's the approach the right is taking. Not sure they have a hell of a big choice. 'Equal Time' is out the window due to Sandy.

The right is better at motivating the morons that weren't going to vote via hate (er I mean religion), which is what made GWB such a potent candidate.

The problem Obama is facing in this campaign and why Romney should have crushed him is he cashed in his "Change, Hope, Youth" cards and really let down the entire movement the thrust him into the presidency. I don't really know who he even has left to go after. He's very much running on the remnants of the same group he ran on last time.

Romney though, well, he just sucks at running for president or he would have won this thing going away. He's nowhere near as dangerous as GWB as a candidate. Thus storm or no storm Obama was going to coast home to a close win.

e0y2e3 wrote:The right is better at motivating the morons that weren't going to vote via hate (er I mean religion), which is what made GWB such a potent candidate.

Is the left better at motivating their lunatic fringe through fear and idealism?

I know they were ridiculously better four years ago at utilizing social networks which was groundbreaking and innovative.

But like you said, that playing field has leveled.

I don't know dude. There are always, always, always 18-22 yr olds to be reached in every election. Steady and growing supply to appeal to. If BO didn't do that this time that's on him, right?

I know have an 18 yr old. She's scrambling like hell to find a decent part time gig and we're scrambling like hell to figure out ways to pay for schools. Those kids might not be as open to that message that carried the day four years ago.

Absolutely on Obama that he lost most of his young and energized base over the last four years.

That said, 18-22 traditionally isn't where you win and lose elections, that was a new Obama thing (and ultimately a thing he lost through making promises that were unattainable in the gridlock that defines modern DC poltiics).

Honestly, if Romney's campaign were run by someone have as diabolically genious as Rove he would have won this thing going away.

It's interesting too that most of GWB's most improtant cabinet and campaign people came from Leo Strauss (U Chicago)'s school of thought. Strauss believed that the common man had to be manipulated to gain power and then removed from the equation because he was unable to govern himself or others.

The shit that Rove and friends pulled off truly was amazing and so historically on point with the core ideologies of Strauss.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Is there anything lower than scaring people with the idea of other people having the same rights as you?

Interesting point.

I would submit that manipulating by fear is vile any way you do it. It's a form of bullying and intimidation and both sides lean heavily on it.

Now, if your voters and population were more educated, informed and responsible as opposed to lazy and uninformed (and both sides are swimming in these people), it probably wouldn't matter and it probably would stop.

BTW: Strauss is widely recognized as the most well-read political theoligan of all time. It's somewhat frightening that the man considered a walking encyclopedia of great political minds and philosopher's fears the common man as much as he does. CDT, I'd recommend reading: http://books.google.com/books/about/Nat ... 1V8Xgz1EUC if you haven't yet. It gives you about a solid a background on the non-con movement as anything you will find written by any fuck today (and it is a quick read).

I agree that something like a hurricane reaction is a good boost for a charismatic incumbent president, but 5 days is a lot of time for that effect to wear off when you're talking about undecided/get off their ass voters. I still think the election is a coinflip.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

Kingpin74 wrote:I agree that something like a hurricane reaction is a good boost for a charismatic incumbent president, but 5 days is a lot of time for that effect to wear off when you're talking about undecided/get off their ass voters. I still think the election is a coinflip.

It will be interesting to see how soon the pictures and stories go away or if the news will be leading with the devastation every night until the election. My guess is that monday morning the first thing you see when you click on Yahoo or flip to the nightly news will be pictures of houses covered in sand and fallen trees.

And while I agree that the election is far from over or a sure thing, but it's only a coin flip if your coin has 4 heads and 1 tails.

Perfect timing for Obama. He gets to do what he does best, get on TV, make pretty speeches, and sound like he's the answer to every problem. But there are millions of people in the cold without power, water or gasoline and may go weeks more without it. The federal government is already pretty bad at helping out in these situations, regardless of who is in power. Now factor in the massive scale of this destruction and you're going to start to see a lot of unrest and a lot of angry finger pointing, but that won't happen until well after next Tuesday. Perfect timing for Obama.

Orenthal wrote:The Ohio poll that had Obama up 5 was +8% Democrat. Don't disagree with the original point of the thread, but the polling still seems sketchy 'cross the board.

538

I'll buy what Nate Silver is selling until someone gives me a reason not to. He has Obama at 79% last I looked.

And Vegas backs up their opinion with cash. If you don't think they understand which polls carry the most weight from year to year you'd be misinformed. They are pretty in line with Silver, and in recent history the only time they weren't pretty much dead nuts was John Kerry.

The thing is the guy is probably fucked if he wins with the Benghazi mess. Could be a scandal ridden 4 years with a GOP House.

Right now until Silver is proven wrong I think its possible Obummer turned this thing around. It will be close in fact could be an electoral college only victory. Still no enthusiasm for him though. Turnout and dead voters are key. Who can mobilize their base? Since I out of ohio how did kasich beat Ted Strickland? Ohio generally doesnt usually vote for leftist cunts but instead middle of the road dems and strickland seems to fit the bill. What happened and what were polls showing?

Orenthal wrote:The Ohio poll that had Obama up 5 was +8% Democrat. Don't disagree with the original point of the thread, but the polling still seems sketchy 'cross the board.

538

I'll buy what Nate Silver is selling until someone gives me a reason not to. He has Obama at 79% last I looked.

And Vegas backs up their opinion with cash. If you don't think they understand which polls carry the most weight from year to year you'd be misinformed. They are pretty in line with Silver, and in recent history the only time they weren't pretty much dead nuts was John Kerry.

Mr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.

But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama’s chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.

Orenthal wrote:The Ohio poll that had Obama up 5 was +8% Democrat. Don't disagree with the original point of the thread, but the polling still seems sketchy 'cross the board.

538

I'll buy what Nate Silver is selling until someone gives me a reason not to. He has Obama at 79% last I looked.

And Vegas backs up their opinion with cash. If you don't think they understand which polls carry the most weight from year to year you'd be misinformed. They are pretty in line with Silver, and in recent history the only time they weren't pretty much dead nuts was John Kerry.

I agree with that LP, and Silver does routinely refer to Vegas and their lines in his updates. I'm not sure if they are included in his forecast.

I'm curious, though. I know that sports lines aren't necessarily what Vegas thinks is going to happen as much as they are the tipping point for bringing in the most public money. Would the election odds be the same thing? Meaning, maybe Vegas thinks that Obama's actual odds of winning are 94%, but a 70% lines brings in the most action?

Or to put it succinctly: Nate Silver is concerned with being right. Vegas is concerned with making money.

Let me try this again. How did Strickland lose? He seems like a reasonable dem, not very progressive, the kind of dem Ohio typically likes. Kasich is much like one of those NBA retread coaches that managed to get hired again and again. What mindset elected a tired Kasich over Strickland if Ohio is such a lock for dems?

Re: the mining the populus comment from Lee earlier, you'd be pretty amazed at how deep and collected the data mining prior to an election is.

All of that superPAC money etc, the campaigns have the ability to mine data in the public domain like you wouldn't believe. The Supreme court struck down a law in vermont that was trying to limit was was publicly accessible; the US laws that protect that shit is a hodgepodge at best.

Every campaign now is driven by algorithms that show public response to every action and allows each side to mathematically determine what gives them the best chance to win; and that data is all damn near instant. Doing a paper on it now for marketing in grad school, it's ridiculous.

At this point it's all about execution, and you're right; getting Obama on tv lets him execute his "look" and stance without saying anything policy related. He just gets to be himself, which is the best way he can be. I think Sandy definitely tilts things back to him, which I was inclined to believe it was going to previously anyway.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

I like the stats Nate Silver is bringing to the public, but they aren't as factual as he makes them sound.

The football analogy breaks down because you know for a fact the team is up by a field goal. However, we don't know if Obama is really up or not. The Gallup Poll has R 51% O 46%, the National Journal Poll has O 50% R 45%. These can't both be correct, random error can't explain the difference. In other words, the problem for forecasters and Nate Silver is they have to incorporate false information into their models.

This is essentially like trying to predict the football game with 3 minutes left and only getting scores from drunken fans leaving the stadium. Its browns +3, browns +5, browns tied, browns -2 etc. Now try to put a percentage on winning the game. Yeah you can average them out, but that almost assures you will have a false score as you are incorporating false data. This is a common problem in statistics.

The reality is we don't know exactly which base is going to show up in bigger numbers until election day. The clues are being interprested differently in different polls. Karl Rove makes a good argument for why the data says Romney will win, Nate Silver for why Obama will.

Don't convince yourself your guy is going to win, because there is no lock-tight data either way at this point. Tuesday evening is going to be fun to watch.

Dick Morris is predicting Romney to win the national election by 8 points and to end up with like 330 electoral votes. He's officially lost his mind, and needs to be locked in a cave with Chris Berman somewhere.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

I don't follow polling that closely, but is there any truly reliable way to predict turnout? Silver seems to do the best possible job with available data but in this election in particular, considering the bases of both sides, it seems like turnout has the potential to be a giant monkey wrench.

I don't know how you designate "likely voters" when you have an incumbent whose passionate base has dwindled and the election could come down to people who literally don't know right now if they'll feel like heading to the polling place Tuesday. Or is that not really enough to move the needle?

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

e0y2e3 wrote:Have you ever bothered to actually research how Silver builds his model? It's in no way perfect, but your discrediting it above shows a complete and utter lack of understanding re: it's functionality.

BTW: the guy did call 49 of 50 states in 2008.

Why do you have to be so disrespectful? I laid out a case to how I see the forecasts in this election. Point out the flaw in my logic and we're all better off, but really, your responses to people's posts just eat away at this message board.

I have read a lot of Silver's blog. I doubt you have a better understanding of his technical model as he doesn't post any hard, technical facts about it, only descriptions of what he does.

That being said, my post wasn't about his model, it was about the polls he has to use as inputs in his model.

Any forecasting system is only as good as its inputs, and so if the polls are systematically wrong, our projection is subject to error as well. - Nate Silver

His prediction in 2008 proves my point even better. In addition to 49 out of 50 states, he was also able to give Obama a 98.7% chance of winning. Why? The polls were much more consistent, thus his forecast was much more accurate. He was also very accurate on the 2010 elections, again, very consistent polling data was available.

From the look of it, this race isn't close at all . One of these candidates is a sure bet, we're just not sure which one. One set of polls plugged into a good forecasting model gives Obama a 95%+ chance of winning. Put the Gallup numbers into a forecasting model and Romney has a 95%+ chance of winning. Put them all in and then its just about hedging and making a best guess. Not saying Silver is wrong, I'm saying even Silver is leaving himself an out and not making a 99% prediction.

I'm not predicting who will win, or which polls are right. I am pointing out this is a rare election where we really will find out on election evening. Unless Ohio recounts.

Discussing national polls when the Obama projection right now is strongly routed in state by state polls and the electoral college is a fallacious argument that shows you addressing the use of Silver's model in a manner that, frankly, doesn't mean shit.

And if that was disrespectful, well fuck me with a stick, because that might be the nicest critique I have laid on anyone all week.

e0y2e3 wrote:Discussing national polls when the Obama projection right now is strongly routed in state by state polls and the electoral college is a fallacious argument that shows you addressing the use of Silver's model in a manner that, frankly, doesn't mean shit.

And if that was disrespectful, well fuck me with a stick, because that might be the nicest critique I have laid on anyone all week.

The state polls are no better than the national polls...

Best indicator is early ballot data. Big swing in Ohio towards the Republicans. Energized base, gonna be interesting.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:The Ohio poll that had Obama up 5 was +8% Democrat. Don't disagree with the original point of the thread, but the polling still seems sketchy 'cross the board.

538

I'll buy what Nate Silver is selling until someone gives me a reason not to. He has Obama at 79% last I looked.

And Vegas backs up their opinion with cash. If you don't think they understand which polls carry the most weight from year to year you'd be misinformed. They are pretty in line with Silver, and in recent history the only time they weren't pretty much dead nuts was John Kerry.

I agree with that LP, and Silver does routinely refer to Vegas and their lines in his updates. I'm not sure if they are included in his forecast.

I'm curious, though. I know that sports lines aren't necessarily what Vegas thinks is going to happen as much as they are the tipping point for bringing in the most public money. Would the election odds be the same thing? Meaning, maybe Vegas thinks that Obama's actual odds of winning are 94%, but a 70% lines brings in the most action?

Or to put it succinctly: Nate Silver is concerned with being right. Vegas is concerned with making money.

Actually, this is a little different than an NFL game. In the NFL, public money trumps "sharp" money, from the wiseguys and syndicates. In this case the number is an "action" number to a higher degree.

In the presidential case, while protected by a lower betting limit, it's not nearly as much of a public bet. In this case it is paramount that your line be "sharp" cause it's a lot harder to balance any action.

I don't claim to be an expert on the presidential prop, save the fact that history has shown it to be very accurate.

The interesting thing concerning the presidential prop would be really knowing their "sources," Vegas has a lot of connections to people in the corporate world, and let's face it, we're voting for one set on corporations that are backing one candidate, or the other set of corporations that are backing the other. In any event, I'm sure they are getting some leans from people other than the per usual political pundits.